"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat. I think of the concepts we have, 'waves' and fluid dynamics in general do a darn good job of making the
quantum world intelligible – and explaining several counter intuitive and 'irrational' or 'inconceivable' phenomenon.

I do think that fluid dynamics can help us before we completely throw out all of our past concepts in favor of some new ontological category like
'paves' or 'warticles'. This spectrum you speak of between waves and particles is something like the idea of a 'round square'... very
problematic. I think it is better to say the quantum world is like neither, than that it is somewhere in-between both.

I also think the probability that the quantum worlds is intelligible and within our grasp is higher than the probability of some totally new (and
never before conceived by the human race) paradigm which you speak of. There is simply too much evidence (IMO) that it is not nature that is funky,
but rather the historical development of quantum theory and our perception of nature that is funky. Also, seen historically, it would not be too
surprising to find out that we have taken about a century-long detour back to about the turn of the last century – to finally sit down and
re-evaluate and re-interpret the arguments of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, de Broglie, Bohm and several others. Not
that we haven't progressed, but if we don't make sure that we haven't missed something it could be a really... really long time before we would
realize it.

I think a cost/benefit analysis shows that we can afford to take a few minutes to go over our old notes before we spend more money on any 'next big
thing'.

We model the quantum world with waves, and choose to interpret certain experiments as exhibiting 'particle behavior' instead of trying to understand
perhaps why a real physically existing wave could produce the phenomenon that appears like discrete particle behavior.

The concept of a (nearly) discrete wave packet has already proven indispensable in this area. It appears (for most reference frames besides the frame
of the quantum foam/ZPE/vacuum) to be discrete, but its 'edges' become blurry and continuous at those sub-quantum magnitudes.

I don't believe so, not in the sense that it is 'free'. More like there is a flowing river that will run for a very, very long time that we could
'tap'. That doesn't mean that we couldn't have incredibly efficient power production and incredibly efficient waste recycling...

If it could run for a very, very long time, what would make it stop running? The aether is not a fuel that you use up. It fills all of space, does it
not?

Well this depends on whether 'space' and the universe is infinite. It depends also on how this machine would work.

I think it is important to distinguish between two somewhat similar concepts here:

1. That spacetime has energy density.

2. That there is energy density in spacetime.

I am concerned with 1. What you call the 'aether' is the energy density OF spacetime, not energy density IN space (spacetime). (Remember
Einstein's quote about extension... which in some sense reverses the idea that matter (or energy) curves spacetime. Rather, it is the energy density
of spacetime which gives us the impression of 'curved'.)

So, the aether does not 'fill' space. It IS space. IOW, space has a property of non-zero energy density. Low energy density of spacetime is
actually what we call 'space' (between planets, star systems, galaxies, etc.).

And again, this 'space' is only a relative vacuum (not an absolute vacuum). And furthermore: light travels through this medium. Which means...
light waves do not have the property of traveling in an absolute (or literal) vacuum. They are not unique among waves in requiring no medium of
propagation.

We model the quantum world with waves, and choose to interpret certain experiments as exhibiting 'particle behavior' instead of trying to understand
perhaps why a real physically existing wave could produce the phenomenon that appears like discrete particle behavior.

This theory I have that folks around here have kindly helped with could show the wave is more than purely mathematical. Which I think would be proof
of the Aether?

No one seems to want to discuss it on physforum, we had more luck on
physicsforum, but at least no one tried to debunk the idea.

Curving Light Wave Theory

What happens to a photon wave packet when emitted from a moving source?

For a stationary source the distribution pattern of photons might be something like a bell curve. For a source in motion, normalize the location of
the photons to the direction of the source, adjusting for the speed of light. Will the bell curve get wider due only to experimental error? Or will
the source motion have a widening effect on the distribution of photons?

If so, the result could be curving vector potential, virtual particles and fractional spin.

A potential method to do the experiment would be to spin a fluorescent molecule with lasers.

Motion in the direction of the photon travel would be expected to cause red shift or blue shift, but that's not what I’m interested in since that
is well known. The direction of motion I’m interested in is other than that, a "sideways" or perhaps "radial" motion, and I’d be interested in
experiments in either.

Ancient esoteric knowledge says the female, negative polarity aethric element underlies this 3D one and that it is based on the flower of life/tree of
life. It is the energy or prana/chi that mystics throughout the ages report seeing, the paisley of the 60’s, Celtic knot work, sacred geometry
etc.

These platonics are known to science as Lie group geometrical representation level (strings) which confirm this idea beyond reasonable doubt by
arranging themselves into the flower of life pattern (mainstream science would say this pattern appeared by chance, yea, it’s those damn monkeys
crapping Shakespeare again).

Originally posted by primalfractal
Ancient esoteric knowledge says the female, negative polarity aethric element underlies this 3D one and that it is based on the flower of life/tree of
life.

There is plenty of "ancient esoteric knowledge" which seems to contain all sorts of stuff, and referring to it as one single defined entity is silly
beyond belief.

It's very amusing and interesting that the "mystics" experience and explore "prana". However, for the rest of the world who need reliable
knowledge to master our environment (translation - not some pretty pics and grand sounding philosophical blabber) it's entirely irrelevant. Once that
"esoteric" crap explains how LEDs work, and why water swirls in different direction in the North and South hemispheres, while going through the
drain, this may change. I doubt it will.

And there are yet others who spent years researching physics not from the depth of the comfy chair, but by doing experiments and solving actual
problems.

A bunch of pretty pictures don't mean jack. The "Vortex Math" you are pushing in this thread does not even have a vortex as a part of its system.
Just ridiculous all the way.

So... you've made this point over and over yet you still insist upon repeating yourself ad nauseam. At what point does it cease to be constructive
contribution and become just so much mental masturbation? We all understand that you're a physicist with a PHD, a smart guy but too stupid to
understand that no one gives a flip about what you say anymore.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.